💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3077943430)
> Concept ACK. This will also need to go back to `27.x`.
Testing a backport to 29.x here: https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions/runs/16316701949
I think the best course of action could be to look for a little more conceptual review here, and after that squash the "ci: port x" commits in this changeset down to a single one, to make backporting to the multiple supported branches easier.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3077943430)
> Concept ACK. This will also need to go back to `27.x`.
Testing a backport to 29.x here: https://github.com/testing-cirrus-runners/bitcoin2/actions/runs/16316701949
I think the best course of action could be to look for a little more conceptual review here, and after that squash the "ci: port x" commits in this changeset down to a single one, to make backporting to the multiple supported branches easier.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209927521)
That would make sense to me too. Happy to make that change here, or in a followup.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209927521)
That would make sense to me too. Happy to make that change here, or in a followup.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209934860)
Yes, we have tested that even if we configure the docker builder using the [`setup-buildx-action`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989/files#diff-fb343e432f60927181ab89952fb0df6f7a0067b0f65727f833efad19b88e5c46R15) where `use` is set to `true` [by default](https://github.com/docker/setup-buildx-action#inputs) (which should enable that driver in future `docker build` invocations IIUC), that the incorrect builder is used unless `docker buildx build` command specifically is used.
We ha
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209934860)
Yes, we have tested that even if we configure the docker builder using the [`setup-buildx-action`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989/files#diff-fb343e432f60927181ab89952fb0df6f7a0067b0f65727f833efad19b88e5c46R15) where `use` is set to `true` [by default](https://github.com/docker/setup-buildx-action#inputs) (which should enable that driver in future `docker build` invocations IIUC), that the incorrect builder is used unless `docker buildx build` command specifically is used.
We ha
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209976950)
Ok. Could we change this to something like: `Using buildx is required to properly load the correct driver, for use with registry caching. Neither build, nor BUILDKIT=1 currently do this properly`. Just want to avoid phrases like "can help" or "is useful", and instead be specific about what we are doing & why.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2209976950)
Ok. Could we change this to something like: `Using buildx is required to properly load the correct driver, for use with registry caching. Neither build, nor BUILDKIT=1 currently do this properly`. Just want to avoid phrases like "can help" or "is useful", and instead be specific about what we are doing & why.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: improve "test each commit" job to handle more complex scenarios":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078016710)
That's interesting. For other subtree merges, it does seem to work.
* E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16022448902/job/45202410762?pr=32856#step:7:1, where it correctly skips over all commits, because after the merge commit, there is only one commit.
* E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16008106824/job/45159350306?pr=32345#step:7:19, where it correctly starts at `commit f8fd3959d51f6f80b428828c4fd965e06a8fa19e` (after the merge) and stops at `commit 008f4ae
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078016710)
That's interesting. For other subtree merges, it does seem to work.
* E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16022448902/job/45202410762?pr=32856#step:7:1, where it correctly skips over all commits, because after the merge commit, there is only one commit.
* E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16008106824/job/45159350306?pr=32345#step:7:19, where it correctly starts at `commit f8fd3959d51f6f80b428828c4fd965e06a8fa19e` (after the merge) and stops at `commit 008f4ae
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210014658)
why not switch to buildx unconditionally?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210014658)
why not switch to buildx unconditionally?
👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#pullrequestreview-3024249604)
ACK 60f9dc8af66bbd4eda81049a10262527f83356a1 . Left a couple improvement suggestions that I think make sense to address here, but also aren't blocking. Happy to quickly re-review if you incorporate.
I think adding (very brief) release notes to indicate the slight behaviour change for `unloadwallet` and `getdescriptoractivity` could be useful for downstream projects.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#pullrequestreview-3024249604)
ACK 60f9dc8af66bbd4eda81049a10262527f83356a1 . Left a couple improvement suggestions that I think make sense to address here, but also aren't blocking. Happy to quickly re-review if you incorporate.
I think adding (very brief) release notes to indicate the slight behaviour change for `unloadwallet` and `getdescriptoractivity` could be useful for downstream projects.
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2209990945)
nit: Unfortunately we have to keep the name "scanobjects" for backwards compatibility, but I think the description should be made more relevant to what this RPC is doing, in line with the `blockhashes` documentation, e.g.
```suggestion
RPCArg{"scanobjects", RPCArg::Type::ARR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The list of descriptors (scan objects) to examine for activity. Every scan object is either a string descriptor or an object:", {
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2209990945)
nit: Unfortunately we have to keep the name "scanobjects" for backwards compatibility, but I think the description should be made more relevant to what this RPC is doing, in line with the `blockhashes` documentation, e.g.
```suggestion
RPCArg{"scanobjects", RPCArg::Type::ARR, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "The list of descriptors (scan objects) to examine for activity. Every scan object is either a string descriptor or an object:", {
```
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2209965857)
side note: the docstring for this RPC seems out of date, could be sensible to fix in this PR? e.g.
<details>
<summary>git diff on 01688e1753</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp b/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
index 67b7aafc00..26033d2119 100644
--- a/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
+++ b/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
@@ -438,8 +438,8 @@ static RPCHelpMan createwallet()
static RPCHelpMan unloadwallet()
{
return RPCHelpMan{"unloadwallet",
- "Unloads the
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2209965857)
side note: the docstring for this RPC seems out of date, could be sensible to fix in this PR? e.g.
<details>
<summary>git diff on 01688e1753</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp b/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
index 67b7aafc00..26033d2119 100644
--- a/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
+++ b/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp
@@ -438,8 +438,8 @@ static RPCHelpMan createwallet()
static RPCHelpMan unloadwallet()
{
return RPCHelpMan{"unloadwallet",
- "Unloads the
...
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2210134549)
I wrote some unit tests for this function, feel free to add to this PR if you think it's helpful: https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/60f9dc8af66bbd4eda81049a10262527f83356a1
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2210134549)
I wrote some unit tests for this function, feel free to add to this PR if you think it's helpful: https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/60f9dc8af66bbd4eda81049a10262527f83356a1
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2210018576)
nit: I think the first paragraph of the 01688e17534d3c9011cce92cff9f7935691bb80c commit message can be improved to:
> Mark `blockhashes` and `scanobjects` arguments as required, so the user receives
> a clear help message when either is missing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2210018576)
nit: I think the first paragraph of the 01688e17534d3c9011cce92cff9f7935691bb80c commit message can be improved to:
> Mark `blockhashes` and `scanobjects` arguments as required, so the user receives
> a clear help message when either is missing.
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210214872)
Does podman accept `docker buildx build` as a command? I will check in a min with it.
but this was why not originally…
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210214872)
Does podman accept `docker buildx build` as a command? I will check in a min with it.
but this was why not originally…
👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "depends: fix libevent `_WIN32_WINNT` usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837#pullrequestreview-3024686388)
crACK f5647c6c5ae85e9469cfc5df6fcac23752e1695a
Checked that the backported patch matches (minus the `wepoll.c` changes which we don't have in our version of libevent).
guix build:
```
❯ find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
54f1ec86a1e595a5529f115a333c5f6cf575ff35f0b87ed501f36f83e28d9063 guix-build-f5647c6c5ae8/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
e9db7e23661bac03b87e38dfc974d27b72ce8d684d9cff7e7105c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837#pullrequestreview-3024686388)
crACK f5647c6c5ae85e9469cfc5df6fcac23752e1695a
Checked that the backported patch matches (minus the `wepoll.c` changes which we don't have in our version of libevent).
guix build:
```
❯ find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
54f1ec86a1e595a5529f115a333c5f6cf575ff35f0b87ed501f36f83e28d9063 guix-build-f5647c6c5ae8/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
e9db7e23661bac03b87e38dfc974d27b72ce8d684d9cff7e7105c
...
💬 josibake commented on issue "ci: improve "test each commit" job to handle more complex scenarios":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078415629)
> For other subtree merges, it does seem to work
AFAICT, this only happens when files in the subtree have been changed, and files in the main repo with the same name have also been changed, i.e., `CMakePresets.json` from the failure I linked. This file is in the bitcoin core root and the secp256k1 root.
> Is your subtree merge commit correct
I hope so! I'm using the same command we us to update the subtree in the project. I'm not sure what you mean by "create the subtree merge commit from scr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078415629)
> For other subtree merges, it does seem to work
AFAICT, this only happens when files in the subtree have been changed, and files in the main repo with the same name have also been changed, i.e., `CMakePresets.json` from the failure I linked. This file is in the bitcoin core root and the secp256k1 root.
> Is your subtree merge commit correct
I hope so! I'm using the same command we us to update the subtree in the project. I'm not sure what you mean by "create the subtree merge commit from scr
...
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210290456)
OK it seems `docker buildx build` does work with podman, so I have changed buildx to be used unconditionally in this commit now. Thanks!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210290456)
OK it seems `docker buildx build` does work with podman, so I have changed buildx to be used unconditionally in this commit now. Thanks!
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210302841)
Yeah, if buildx is missing on some platforms, it could also use auto-detection to use it when available and not, when not.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210302841)
Yeah, if buildx is missing on some platforms, it could also use auto-detection to use it when available and not, when not.
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "depends: Windows libevent build broken against mingw-w64 13.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32707)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32707)
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Adds transaction propagation information to mempool transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986#issuecomment-3078438016)
> I'm unsure whether the added complexity is justified, given that it's unlikely to be used beyond that specific context.
Would adding tracepoint(s) be a suitable alternative? More overhead for the user, but probably much less in this repo?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986#issuecomment-3078438016)
> I'm unsure whether the added complexity is justified, given that it's unlikely to be used beyond that specific context.
Would adding tracepoint(s) be a suitable alternative? More overhead for the user, but probably much less in this repo?
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: fix libevent `_WIN32_WINNT` usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837)
💬 lamachina commented on issue "Release Schedule for 30.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32275#issuecomment-3078441041)
blacknode.co is ready #️⃣🧡
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32275#issuecomment-3078441041)
blacknode.co is ready #️⃣🧡